S v Khoza (92/88) [1988] ZASCA 80 (23 August 1988)

S v Khoza (92/88) [1988] ZASCA 80 (23 August 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court's majority did not misdirect itself in its approach to the onus of proof regarding mitigating circumstances. The appellant's evidence of drunkenness and provocation was found to be unreliable and uncorroborated. The alleged provocation was undermined by the appellant's own contradictory statements regarding the existence of a debt. The evidence did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol or provoked at the time of the murder. The murder was committed in the course of a robbery, with a wire loop used to strangle the deceased, indicating a degree of planning. The appeal against...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 80
Parties
Appellant: Paulus Vusi Khoza; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 1988
Case Number
92/88
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence and Finding of No Mitigating Circumstances
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Grosskopf, Vivier, Milne
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Mitigating Circumstances, Drunkenness, Provocation, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Mitigating Circumstances Drunkenness Provocation Onus of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paulus Vusi Khoza

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence and Finding of No Mitigating Circumstances

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding that there were no mitigating circumstances in respect of the murder conviction.
  2. 2 Whether the death sentence was appropriate given the facts and alleged mitigating factors.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant proved on a balance of probabilities that he was under the influence of alcohol or provoked at the time of the offence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court's majority did not misdirect itself in its approach to the onus of proof regarding mitigating circumstances. The appellant's evidence of drunkenness and provocation was found to be unreliable and uncorroborated. The alleged provocation was undermined by the appellant's own contradictory statements regarding the existence of a debt. The evidence did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol or provoked at the time of the murder. The murder was committed in the course of a robbery, with a wire loop used to strangle the deceased, indicating a degree of planning. The appeal against...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed.